Yes you can as you did. yet this is simple accumulation of data. its not science. its not hypothesis where testing must take place to give it credibility as a theory.

There are many problems with this statement. However, lets start with the good bit: You agree that "accumulation of evidence" can result in valid conclusions concerning the most probable course of past events. Great. If you actually understood the evidence for an old earth, common descent and evolution, we'd be done, because there is a truly monumental accumulation. Far more than there is for my little murder mystery above!

Of course, the "obvious" conclusion from my story above is not simply based on an "accumulation of evidence". The conclusion is reached by starting with certain assumptions about the nature of the universe, and using them, combined with reason and evidence to confirm or deny certain hypotheses about past events. In other words, exactly the same things geology and paleontology do.

The assumptions are far to numerous to list, but one I would like to point out is that it completely disregards the possibility of supernatural intervention. If "a miracle happened, because my book says so" is a valid argument, then that should be sufficient to get our defendant off the hook, right ?